”Zimbabwe won the toss and will field,” announced Ramiz Raja. A day later, Michael Holding: ”Ireland won the toss and decided to bowl”. Even the broadcast feed: ”Australia won the toss and chose to bat,” an on-screen flash told viewers.
Whatever happened to ”so and so won the toss and elected to bat/bowl” — that pompous idiocy so beloved of cricket commentators, particularly South Africans steeped in the Quirks of Trevor?
The apparent concession to lovers of the English language was a small sign that the 2007 Cricket World Cup, like the 1996 tournament, could topple the shibboleths. Round one is already littered with broken expectations. There is a sense of new beginnings and departures absent from 2003.
Of course, one-day internationals (ODI), with their single-innings, all-or-nothing format, lend themselves to upsets, particularly in the early rounds. There is less scope for bad luck to correct itself, and on bad wickets the toss can be decisive.
Ireland, a motley crew of club players (including Aussies sailing under a flag of convenience), cannot approach Pakistan’s collective talent or experience. But winning a crucial toss and bowling seam-up into the tropical luxuriance on a length at Sabina Park, the Irish bowlers briefly inverted the natural order.
Bangladesh and a stoked-up West Indies with home advantage are a different proposition. The Bengal Tigers are transfigured, even from two years ago, when Jacques Rudolph put their trundlers to the sword, and strongly call to mind Sri Lanka’s rise from tiddler status two decades ago.
They are further evidence of the eastward shift in cricket’s centre of gravity, symbolised by the staging of the 1996 World Cup on the Indian sub-continent.
Bangladesh may be ranked ninth of the 11 ODI teams, but they are young and hungry — average age 22 — and they are a national unit, rather than a weakly bonded multinational operation in the Canadian mould. It was the intensity of their challenge to India’s jaded superstars that carried the day.
In man-of-the-match Mashrafe Mortaza (4-38 in 9.3 overs), they have their first genuine fast bowler, and three batsmen chipped in to keep the run chase alive.
Bangladesh reject the minnow tag, calling themselves the tournament’s ”surprise package”, but for them to go beyond the Super Eight would outrage even the ODI’s elastic laws of probability.
On current evidence, the outsider with most trophy-winning potential is the West Indies.
Deceptively ranked eighth, they have a potent batting line-up featuring one of the world’s most destructive hitters in Chris ”Gale Force” Gayle, the canny and tenacious Shiv Chanderpaul, a classy aggressor in Marlon Samuels — and, of course, Brian Lara. Their pace attack, which had the Pakistani top order shaking in their Nikes, evokes other, happier days.
Of course, it is quite possible that either the favourites or the second-favourites, due to meet in St Kitts and Nevis on Saturday, will cheer the bookies’ hearts. And, judging from the games to date, it is more likely to be the latter.
There has been much smug chortling in South Africa about the national side’s run glut against Holland and Herschelle Gibbs’s ”six orgy”. Three observations:
- Despite Holland’s pea-shooter attack, it took five overs, and the loss of AB de Villiers to a typically irresponsible shot, before Smith and company got to grips with the slow wicket. South African batsmen are far more comfortable on the green, green grass of home;
- Forget the size of the grounds: Gibbs hit his sixes against what must be the worst international leg-spinner since records began, who completed his over with three rank long-hops. And most significantly;
- Australia cleaned up Holland in a clinical 26 overs; after 40, the South Africans were still toiling against the Dutch tail-end.
There should be serious worries about the South African attack, even with Makhaya Ntini. There is a monochrome quality about the seamers — same pace, same tactics — which only Pollock, by dint of his extraordinary accuracy, transcends.
On these slow surfaces, the loss of Brett Lee is less of a problem for the Australians than it might seem. They, and particularly Glenn McGrath and Nathan Bracken, understand that the secret is to keep the batsmen guessing.
A typical McGrath over last Sunday: length ball, bouncer, slower ball, off-cutter, yorker, length ball. By incorporating subtle variations, he has become a more formidable ODI campaigner in recent years, with a scarcely credible 2007 average of 6,14.
The second factor is spin, which will be needed in the tougher games ahead.
For good reason, Robin Peterson is unlikely to see much action in this tournament — a bowler with an ODI bowling average of 58 who merely runs his fingers over the seam, he risks crucifixion on these small grounds. And Graeme Smith, a part-timer who can be relied on to send down one or two stinkers an over, is no substitute.
Australia’s Brad Hogg may not be Shane Warne, but he is a dedicated wrist-spinner who will extract turn from these wickets, with a good googly and change of pace.
The South Africans have a deep-seated fear of the Australians, which surfaces in their habit of losing when it really counts. As Saturday’s match doesn’t really matter, they might win. But I seriously doubt they’ll go the whole way.